Thank you Nick for the analysis of the process with regards to consensus. I fully agree with your analysis and conclusion.
I would once again like to express my support for the CRISP proposal and thank all the participants in the CRISP team for their work. Hans Petter Holen On 5 February 2015 15:26:39 CET, Nick Hilliard <[email protected]> wrote: >Nurani, > >thanks for bringing this to the RIPE Co-op WG. I've cc:d the ianaxfer >mailing list in my reply. > >Richard Hill's issues seem to fall into two broad categories, namely >the >issue of consensus / constituency, and the completeness of the >proposal. > >Regarding consensus, the RIPE community has always aspired to the >principals of consensus which were formally expressed in RFC-7282. >These >principals state that unanimity is not a prerequisite for consensus and >that reaching consensus involves addressing - although not necessarily >accommodating - all the issues which arise during the process. I'd >like to >particularly note the Introduction section in RFC-7282, which says: > >> [...] we strive to make our decisions by >> the consent of all participants, though allowing for some dissent >> (rough consensus), and to have the actual products of engineering >> trump theoretical designs (running code). >> >> Having full consensus, or unanimity, would be ideal, but we don't >> require it: Requiring full consensus allows a single intransigent >> person who simply keeps saying "No!" to stop the process cold. > >It's clear that Richard Hill's objections have been noted, given >consideration and that even though they have not necessarily been >accommodated, broad community consensus has been reached on the CRISP >proposal. > >Regarding constituency, this is clearly laid out in section 1.A of the >ICG >document: > >> >https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/iana-transition-assembly-finalization-24dec14-en.pdf > >The CRISP proposal concerns the IANA numbering resources function, and >was >prepared by a group consisting of members of the appropriate >operational >community, namely the RIRs and their stakeholders. As a RIR community >member, I'm fully satisfied that the CRISP team is representative of >its >respective communities and that it has operated within its mandate of >providing an outline proposal with community consensus. Certainly >within >the RIPE community, the CRISP proposal has been widely publicised and >its >members have gone to considerable lengths to involve members of the >wider >community. > >Regarding the completeness of the proposal and with particular >reference to >dispute resolution, jurisdiction and arbitration, these are important >issues but it is not, in my opinion, necessary to finalise details on >them >at this time. Finalisation will occur after extensive analysis and >discussion between the stakeholders who make up the CRISP proposal >(with >appropriate legal input), and there is not a problem with expecting >that >this will happen at a future stage in the process. > >In short, I don't see a problem with the CRISP proposal (+ repeat my >previous support for it) and am satisfied that Richard Hill's concerns >are >either misplaced or else have been adequately addressed. > >Nick > >On 05/02/2015 12:56, Nurani Nimpuno wrote: >> Dear colleagues, >> >> Please find below the email sent by the CRISP chair Izumi Okutani to >the global [email protected] mailing list. The mail addresses concerns >raised by some members of the list after the submission of the CRISP >proposal to the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG). >> >> We very much welcome your input in this discussion, as some of the >points raised concerns the amount of community support this proposal >holds. >> >> Kind regards, >> >> Nurani Nimpuno >> on behalf of the CRISP RIPE team >> >> >> Begin forwarded message: >> >>> From: Izumi Okutani <[email protected]> >>> Subject: [NRO-IANAXFER] Fwd: The CRISP Team Response to "Process >concern regarding the RIR proposal development process " >>> Date: 4 februari 2015 20:54:59 CET >>> To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> >>> >>> Dear all, >>> >>> >>> This is the CRISP Team Response to "Process concern regarding the >RIR >>> proposal development process ", which is another post to icg-forum. >>> >>> Again, I welcome your comments and feedback about our reponse which >is >>> likely to be a reference to the ICG. >>> >>> Explicit expressing support would be extremely helpful as well. >>> >>> >>> >>> Regards, >>> Izumi >>> >>> >>> -------- Forwarded Message -------- >>> Subject: The CRISP Team Response to "Process concern regarding the >RIR >>> proposal development process " >>> Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2015 04:43:25 +0900 >>> From: Izumi Okutani <[email protected]> >>> To: [email protected] >>> CC: [email protected] <[email protected]> >>> >>> Dear ICG members, >>> >>> >>> On 20 January 2015 Richard Hill wrote to the icg-forum list with a >>> number of concerns about the CRISP team process. >>> >>> http://forum.icann.org/lists/icg-forum/msg00020.html >>> >>> The concerns expressed by Mr Hill were considered in depth during >the >>> CRISP team proposal development process and had been discussed on >the >>> ianaxfer mailing list with Mr Hill as well as other community >members. >>> >>> The positions taken by the CRISP team was based on the consensus >>> position of the community. >>> >>> >>> Richard Hill wrote: >>> >>>> Certain legal questions were raised in discussions on the CRISP >>> mailing list >>>> (NRO IANAXFER), in particular regarding jurisdiction and dispute >>> resolution. >>>> The CRISP team apparently did not include anybody who had >appropriate >>> legal >>>> expertise and it chose not to request outside legal expertise, see: >>>> https://www.nro.net/pipermail/ianaxfer/2015-January/000322.html >>> >>> Mr Hill’s objections to the position adopted by the CRISP team were >well >>> documented in his emails to the ianaxfer mailing list, and were >>> discussed at length on the CRISP teleconferences (notes and audio >>> archives of these calls are available at >https://nro.net/crisp-team). >>> Additionally, they were included in the CRISP team’s matrix of >community >>> comments and concerns posted at: >>> https://www.nro.net/crisp-iana-xfer-summary-discussion-08012015 >>> >>> The CRISP team’s final position is effectively summarised in the >text of >>> our response to the ICG RFP: >>> >>> “The RIRs, as the contractual party of this agreement, will draft >the >>> specific language of this agreement. During the drafting process, >the >>> RIRs are expected to consult their respective RIR communities, and >that >>> the drafting process will be guided by the principles listed below.” >>> [Response to the ICG RFP on the IANA from the Internet Number >Community, >>> p11] >>> >>> The RFP response then lists 11 IANA Service Level Agreement >Principles. >>> This was based on taking into account of feedback on the ianaxfer >>> mailing list, to bring the proposal back to describing high level >>> principles. >>> >>> The CRISP team’s position took into account the concerns raised by >Mr >>> Hill, and addressed some points he has raised, such as describing in >the >>> proposal that RIRs are expected to consult their respective RIR >>> communities, as quoted earlier. >>> >>> The CRISP Team was also informed by other feedback received via the >>> ianaxfer mailing list, particularly those mails which explicitly >>> supported the approach of delegating contract authorship to the RIR >>> legal teams. Posts by Hans Petter Holen (7 Jan,10 Jan) Seun Ojedeji >(7 >>> Jan) Gerard Ross (11 January), Jim Reid (12 January), Andrew Dul (12 >>> January) and Dmitry Burkov (13 January) specifically endorsed this >view. >>> All of these mails can be read at: >>> https://www.nro.net/pipermail/ianaxfer/2015-January/date.html >>> >>> A further concern noted by Mr Hill: >>>> That is, how can NTIA be expected to approve a proposal when >important >>>> details are left open and have not been reviewed or endorsed by the >global >>>> multi-stakeholder community? >>> >>> The CRISP team has crafted a proposal that reflects the value that >the >>> community places on the number-related IANA functions. This is >reflected >>> in the proposal to safeguard the RIR communities’ stewardship over >these >>> functions via a contractual relationship. It is the responsibility >of >>> the parties to a contract to negotiate a contract. The CRISP team >>> believes that by directing the RIRs to consult with their >communities >>> and by laying down the principles mentioned above, we have >established a >>> framework within which the RIR legal staff can effectively negotiate >in >>> the best interests of the community. >>> >>> Finally, Mr Hill has expressed that "there was limited input and the >>> outcome was largely influenced by the CRISP team and the RIR staff”. >As >>> noted above, there were numerous posts to the ianaxfer mailing list, >>> many of which touched specifically on the issues discussed by Mr >Hill. >>> From 17 October 2014 to 29 January 2015 there were 372 mails to the >>> ianaxfer list and 134 subscribers - information on the list is >available >>> at: https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/ianaxfer >>> >>> I hope that this is a useful explanation of the CRISP team’s >position in >>> regard to the issues raised by Mr Hill. I am of course happy to >discuss >>> any of these issues in greater depth if this would be helpful. >>> >>> >>> Yours sincerely, >>> >>> Izumi Okutani >>> Chair, the CRISP Team >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> ianaxfer mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/ianaxfer >> >> >> > >_______________________________________________ >ianaxfer mailing list >[email protected] >https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/ianaxfer -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
